|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 11:07 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 08:20 AM
|
| |
That is what I said (with regards to camera dependend hidden manipulations). If it also is image content dependend I do not know. But I wouldnt mind much for comparions of the same scene.
I disagree. As much as you can select software you can select hardware. And if one has a silly fundamentalist view on raw files there is no difference which part of the chain manipulated the raw data before he gains access.
The "promise" you mention has never been an actual promise by those who provide the files. It always has been a child's x-mas wish. Otherwise it would be strange that absolutely all makers have here or there manipulated the sensor data before it got to a file written.
I bet if you write to any of them they will just blabber about "extended editing capabilities".
If you can dig up any official Pentax or any other maker "promise" "that they contain all information the sensor captured" I'll change my opinion.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 02:50 AM
|
| |
They do use Adobe products to generate "test" and "comparison" results.
And it is not only noise reduction. Basically Adobe LR and ACR screw around in absolutely all key visually effective raw development areas, before you even start to move sliders in the UI and when you manually reset them to neutral/zero.
- Exposure
- Sharpening
- Noise reduction
- Contrast
So what you see upon opening a DNG/PEF file in Adobe is not a "raw" file and it is not just a debayered raw file (which is what would be the purist expectation).
It is a fully cooked JPG, which depends on Adobe's proprietary decisions to manipulate the above four processings.
If they decide to give a camera model less contrast or more out of the box sharpening, that is what the user gets presented as "raw".
If it is a stupid idea from Ricoh not not have a software switch for NR, then it is even more a stupid idea from Adobe to not have multiple software switches to turn off the multitude of their hidden raw2jpg cooking.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-06-2018, 11:35 AM
|
| |
Has somebody ever mentioned that the standard consumer raw processor used by many beginners and forum users alike are the Adobe products?
And that these very products interfere /manipulate heavily with raw files exposure, sharpness and noise (the latter two being unavoidable even when the sliders are at zero), before their UI even lets users influence the image. So whoever uses Adobe products is showing that he is absolutely happy with major manipulation of raw. And these hidden and often non-counteractable manipulations are way more invasive than what the difference is between the K-1 and K-1 II.
I bet 9 out of 10 forum raw fundamentalists use Adobe products and make a fool of themselves with each post.
The same make-yourself-a-fool method as lamenting lack of contrast when comparing images in Adobe products for the K-1 II without having a proper K-1 II dedicated raw profile, which is controlling the base tone curve. Build a nice camera profile and suddenly your camera is king of contrast.
It's like children whining about tiny differences in the taste of french fries - after burying them under a pound of ketchup.
Anyhow it certainly is a stupid idea from Ricoh to not offer a software switch. I bet 95% wouldn't switch it off after a week of comparing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-05-2018, 06:57 AM
|
| |
Still all the available curves are completely worthless. No image proof, no value.
Try answering the following question from above:
Which actual practice relevant quality does what you call "dynamic range" depicted in the DxO curves give the average photographer when it fails to predict the ability to push shadows (which is a question people ask)?
And can you show me two raw files which prove the curves' claim (a better versus a worse value on the curves) visually in a real image?
If you can show practise relevant added value with photo evidence in raws everyone can check independendly, I'll withdraw the "worthless". A curve alone means nothing.
The crappy execution on dpr's is a shame, yes, but with regards to this question all anyone needs is a raw file with a comparable subject at comparable lighting situations. And they are there.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-04-2018, 04:20 AM
|
| |
Not really. I just highlight that they answer a question nobody cares for and dont answer the question people do care for.
I will stick with the term dynamic range as it is being used in forum discussions all the time.
But beyond terminology please provide some supporting info on the curves:
Which actual practice relevant quality does the "dynamic range" depicted in the DxO curves give the average photographer when it fails to predict the ability to push shadows (which is a question people ask)? And can you show me two raw files which prove this (a better versus a worse value on the curves) visually in a real image? That is what is needed to not have to discount the curves as completely worthless.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-03-2018, 01:18 PM
|
| |
I am surely not talking about a technical domain, but image qualities that can and must be judged visually.
The standard is what the majority of people refer to. This vast majority doesn't give a darn about what a handful of theoreticians want them to call things.
So we keep calling it dynamic range. You call it what you want. :)
As I already said, the photographic dynamic range to be able to push shadows is the only relevant attribute to most people discussing dynamic range.
You completely don't seem to grasp the concept of what we all discuss when talking about dynamic range. There is no "conceptualisation" needed. There just is the image quality at some exposure parameters.
And the word of an engineer is about as relevant as the word of an 8 year old. Not at all. :)
I stick to how photographers use it. Anything else is not adding value at all.
In your words "it is not even debatable" that it offers much more DR than all Sonys and Nikons.
That only serves as a proof to how irrelevant and misleading to uninformed noobs it is to look at "curves" when they fail to match real world images.
The worthless curves obviously completely fail to display the photographic dynamic range real world users can use. Sad, but true.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-03-2018, 08:17 AM
|
| |
Anybody can call it what he wants, feel free to give it any name you want. I'll stick with DR, maybe photo DR. The ability to push shadows in post ("exposure latitude") is THE reason for most photographers to want more dynamic range. Nothing else.
As long as whatever they do gives me such a superior image quality with less noise, more detail, more DR I'd be silly to see a negative in this. I am not going to criticize Pentax for superior images. :)
Not really. It is a disadvantage. The noise behaviour is worse on the D810 (add some magenta splotches). It (same as D850) has worse dynamic range (see above). And even its still lower DR only maxes out at the ISO 64 you mention, which means you need considerably more light to make use of it. That is a drawback.
I'd rather take max DR (at the high levels of a K-1 II at ISO 100) at ISO 200 than crippling it to higher ISO than 100.
I was not happy about the ISO 80 as prerequisite for max DR on the K-5.
Different requirements between you and me probably.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-03-2018, 02:40 AM
|
| |
Interestingly none of the discussions and claims explain why the dynamic range of the K-1 II at ISO 100 is significantly better than any other FF camera out there, including those with newer sensors and priced nearly 2x as high, as well as comparing it against ISO 64 dynamic range.
Image comparison: Digital Photography Review
There also are no explanations why this superiority of dynamic range is so big against the D810, which supposedly has the exact same sensor and while at ISO 100 no NR is happening in the K-1 II. Not to mention that the D810 (and D850) is much inferior even at ISO 64.
The Sony A7RIII is so mushy it basically seems like 5 year old 24MPx camera compared.
Why does post production lifting exposure eat whole starfields on the more expensive cameras?
|
